Three symbolic political developments. In my opinion, three symbolic events characterise political life in this period leading up to Easter: (a) the first public debates at the Council of Ministers on the EU's Financial Perspectives for 2014-2020. The true debate has not yet started, but the debate has formally opened into the choices that will determine in practice what the EU will be like in the future; (b) the decision by Tunisia to not use sharia (Islamic law) as the foundation of its new constitution; and (c) the Socialists' launch of the election campaign for the European elections of 2014. All three events are about the future. I shall be returning later to the third and the participation of Jacques Delors, and events in Tunisia. Meanwhile, I have some comments about the formal opening of the budget debates.
The debate about the future of the EU has begun. The 2014-2020 Financial Perspectives are a budget which will effectively shape tomorrow's Europe. The debate at the Council of Ministers was launched this week in a sitting that was open to the public (note the symbolism of this), and was discussed in detail in EUROPE 10582, but it has only been talked about by experts. The normal news channels and other media were at pains to ignore it, doing no more than simply setting out their own country's line.
In this newsletter, we explained the starting positions of each member state - which come as no surprise. The net contributors say that budget austerity that is being imposed in all countries must be respected at EU level as well and the total budget proposed by the European Commission must be cut by some €100 billion (some governments say it should be cut by even more); the other member states broadly back the Commission's ideas. A priori, both sides' arguments are justified. Expanding current EU spending can be explained by the need to protect the current common policies and cope with the EU's greater powers - more areas require EU funding. The views of the net contributors seem equally justified (net contributors being countries that pay more into the EU budget than they receive back), expecting the EU to apply the same budget discipline as member states.
The real talks have not yet begun. In reality, countries usually take a more nuanced line. Belgium admits that the EU's budget is not high when one considers the aim of stimulating growth. Germany, however, says that the budget must not exceed 1% of EU gross national income. It is odd to hear Hungary argue that there cannot be more Europe with less money, at the same time as its government is busy demanding the return of power from Europe to Hungary! It's clearly a slogan that Budapest does not want to see applied to EU funding.
This starting debate simply reaffirmed the starting positions that were already no secret, but the real talks have not yet begun and will only kick off when the heads of state get talking, after the French presidential election. The first debate by heads of state will therefore be at the June European summit, based on a report drawn up by ministers on basic guidelines (no actual figures at this stage). The final decision is expected before the end of the year.
Crucial agreement from the European Parliament. We must not forget that the European Parliament has been given (seized?) a crucial role in the setting of the Financial Perspectives for 2014-2020. The EP delegation, headed by Alain Lamassoure, will be giving its views on all aspects of the budget and seems particularly keen to draw up a permanent link between spending and resources. In the event of failure to reach agreement on the whole package by the end of the year, the EP may decide simply to continue with the current situation, but the Council of Ministers would not be happy about that.
Watch this space. My aim here was to draw attention to the fact that although the debate might appear theoretical and ignored by the general public, it will nevertheless be decisive for the future of Europe because although plans and programmes are necessary, they will not lead to anything if there is no money behind them.
(FR/transl.fl)